Republican shape of things to come

I was on assignment for the Daily Republic last week. They didn’t know it, but I was. Glen Faison, the managing editor, would never have approved of such a dangerous, expensive mission. I went rogue, risking my very life for you, dear reader, doing professional, investigative journalism, deep undercover.

My journey took me far from the familiar environs of Fairfield, into the dark, dangerous jungles of mysterious Mexico. When I arrived at my final destination, I secretly donned the guise of an American 1 percenter and checked in at a swanky Cancun resort. Using my remarkable “people skills” (many mistake me for that Dos Equis guy: “The Most Interesting Man in the World”), I mingled effortlessly with the 1 percenters as they unabashedly frolicked in their Republican Theme Park, Mexico.

I now present you with the Blood Diamond of my treacherous quest: A brief glimpse into your future.

Mexico is what the Republicans want America to be. You can either agree with me or you can agree to disagree, it doesn’t matter. It remains the truth. Before you go all indignant on me, let me first say that I really enjoyed being a 1 percenter. At the resort, there were more workers than guests and we were well cared for: beautiful surroundings, modern, immaculate facilities and every need instantly met by a smiling, gracious, uniformed worker.

What’s not to like?

Mexico is truly a Republican Dream Land: There are far fewer of those pesky regulations than the U.S. and also far fewer unions. Officially, the minimum wage is about $4 per hour, but jobs often have task-oriented pay. Eight-hour workdays can become 12 without overtime and health insurance is usually not the employers’ problem. Retirement comes when you can no longer work efficiently. Then it’s adios, and good luck.

Mexico City reports 100,000 deaths a year from air pollution and ranks as the fifth unhealthiest city in the world. Water? Bottled, thank you. Mexico also has an extremely regressive tax system with no income tax, a 4.7 percent corporate tax and a 10.6 percent sales tax. I think that’s the official Republican Christmas list this year.

The conservative Heritage Foundation ranks countries by “Level of Freedom — Government Spending” or, what a normal person would call “lack of government.” Mexico gets good ratings along with other “winners” at the top like Haiti, Liberia and Bangladesh, while “losers” like the U.S. are stuck with the likes of Switzerland and Japan. It really doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out which direction Republicans want to take this country and for the 99 percent of us on the bottom, their future looks mighty bleak.

One day, our group rented a van to go check out another beach a few miles away, we took a wrong turn and discovered where some of our happy resort workers lived. It was an obviously poor town with many do-it-yourself homes constructed from what I would call “found” materials. Skinny kids and skinnier dogs wandered the filthy streets unattended.

Welcome to the real world of Republican deregulation.

For the 1 percent on the top, I can tell you from personal experience, it’s pretty sweet. The problem is that not everyone can be a 1 percenter. Only about one in a hundred, or, more realistically, that number is about one in a thousand. Unfortunately, through the awesome power of propaganda, many of us 99 percenters vote as though we were 1 percenters. We vote against our own best interests, for the benefit of those much, much richer.

Hey! Stop doing that.

Now, who do I talk to at the Daily Republic about getting reimbursed for this? I have receipts. Glen?

Mike Kirchubel grew up in Fairfield and is the author of “Vile Acts of Evil” the worker’s view of banking in America.

mike kirchubelOctober 25, 2011 - 7:17 am

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 7:40 am

Mike, I too was recently treated to a 1%er vacation and it was nice to see how that "other half" lives.
Personally, I've been to Mexico but will not go back so I give you great props for guts!
I agree the Republican Party is not looking out for our best interest. Now that Cain has been done away with, I am anxious to hear more about Perry's tax idea. I need to have these money things spelled out because they are not my bag. He still wants to get rid of SSI and I need to know more about how that works for those eligible or nearly eligible among us. And I am dead set against anyone opening the Constitution for “revamping.”
Let me know how that reimbursement works for you!

mike kirchubelOctober 25, 2011 - 9:02 am

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 9:32 am

Mike, at this point, none of us can afford to hold our breath! I have never understood why so many people hold themselves back and buy into all this nonsense. I am convinced the majority will see the truth at the last minute and bury the Republicans for their arrogance and determination to win at our cost.
Hope you had a great trip. My brother went on a Mexican cruise recently and they took two of their stops off the tour. Too crazy down there for me Sir!

Mr. PracticalOctober 25, 2011 - 12:27 pm

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 7:30 am

Mmm, seems to me that the 1% travel theme is familiar. Yes, it was when I mentioned it to CD while he was in Las Vegas recently. LOL Another theme I've explored too is about the U.S. turning into a banana republic. Only in the actual reality, the devastation is actually being caused by Obama and the the liberals spending like there's no tomorrow. Hey wait, there IS NO tomorrow unless we do something in 2012!

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 2:13 pm

Clay MooreOctober 25, 2011 - 8:02 am

Isn't this a trip where your wife went and no other spouse? The IRS takes unsolicited payments all the time, why have you not made any extra financial effort on your part to help out? Clearly you have more than enough disposable income to take such a lavish trip.
Ah this is a case of, it applies to everybody but me syndrome. Sort of like getting caught with drugs and saying it wasn't that big of an amount.

SavetheRepublicOctober 25, 2011 - 10:21 am

rlw895October 26, 2011 - 3:40 am

We were (emphasis on "were") involved in the Libyan war because our allies needed us. It demonstrated how to remove a dictator, in sharp contrast to the Iraq war, which presumably had the same purpose.

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 1:39 pm

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 1:51 pm

Afternoon Marci! I knew you'd be coming forth soon! :) Mr. Practical has checked in as well. Welcome all! Me and Mike have been carrying the load so far today! But Mr. Practical just drove 350 yrds. right down the center of the fairway!

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 2:01 pm

Hey, CD. Yes, I'm back! Too bad it was just you and Mike. :)
Say, why ARE we in Libya anyway?! We spent billions and billions, and the women of Libya will be oppressed by Sharia Law. Hillary should get our bucks back pronto!

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 2:45 pm

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 2:38 pm

LOL, Mike. Whatever you're smoking or drinking is much too strong. :) Maybe you are suggesting that the GOP proposed genital mutilation for women; stoning female adulterers, and the like?! Or maybe like poor misguided HarryReid, you're lamenting how the mean ole GOP is letting women fall on the floor?!

Mr. PracticalOctober 25, 2011 - 2:59 pm

Mike, unless there's another bill it missed, the one you're referencingl was regarding taxpayer funding of abortion.
It's hard to tell if you don't comprehend what you read, don't remember well or just simply like to misinform?

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 3:23 pm

Mike KirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 6:20 am

Sorry it took so long to get back to yoou guys on this - I was busy yesterday at a meeting and still trying to catch up on everything. Anyway, to answer your question:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
October 13, 2011
"Mr. Speaker,
I rise in opposition to HR 358, the Protect Life Act.
The American people want us to work together to create jobs to bolster the economy. Instead, we are here, once again, to consider legislation that endangers and attacks the right of women and is far out of the mainstream of American priorities.
HR 358 is extreme legislation. It is another attempt to unravel the health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that will harm women’s health.
This legislation revives a debate that has already been settled – there is no federal funding for abortion in the health care reform law. Legal experts have said it. Independent fact check organizations have said it. Yet, Republicans continue to insist that the possibility of funding remains.
Federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions under the Hyde Amendment – at the expense of poor women, federal employees, women in the District of Columbia and women in the military. But this bill goes way beyond that law.
It would take away a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health – even with her own money.
It could expand the existing conscience objection to avoid providing contraception.
And, it would allow public hospitals to deny emergency abortion care to women in life-threatening situations.
HR 358 undermines the guarantee of emergency care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA creates a legal safety net that guarantees that anyone in need of emergency health care, including those unable to pay for health care, cannot be denied such care at hospitals.
HR 358 would strip EMTALA of its power to ensure that women receive abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals by making their right to health care secondary to the hospital’s ability to refuse to provide abortion care.
Abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman’s life. During the hearing on H.R. 358 in the Energy and Commerce Committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this was not the case.
In response to those claims, Dr. Cassing Hammond, Director of Northwestern University’s Center for Family Planning and Contraception as well as its academic Section of Family Planning, wrote a letter to the Committee to set the record straight. Dr. Hammond has twenty years of experience in obstetric and complex abortion care.
In his letter, Dr. Hammond states:
“Most patients are healthy women having healthy babies, but I am frequently asked to provide abortions for women confronting severely troubled pregnancies or their own life endangering health issues. Physicians who provide health care to women cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences of human pregnancy—and neither should Congress.”
Dr. Hammond then proceeds to give several examples from his own experience of women who required abortion care in life-saving circumstances. The following examples illustrate just a few of those instances:
•“One of my own obstetric patients carrying a desired pregnancy recently experienced rupture of the amniotic sac at 20 weeks gestation. The patient had a complete placenta previa, a condition where the afterbirth covers the opening of the uterus. Although the patient hoped the pregnancy might continue, she began contracting and suddenly hemorrhaged, losing nearly a liter of blood into her bed in a single gush. Had we not quickly intervened to terminate the pregnancy, she would have bled to death, just as women do in countries with limited access to obstetric services.”
•“My service often receives consults regarding patients with serious medical issues complicating pregnancy. We recently had a 44-year-old patient whose pregnancy had been complicated by a variety of non-specific symptoms. A CT scan obtained at 23 weeks gestation revealed that the patient had lung cancer that had metastasized to her brain, liver, and other organs. Her family confronted the difficult choice of terminating a desired pregnancy or continuing the pregnancy knowing that the physiological burden of pregnancy and cancer might worsen her already poor prognosis. The family chose to proceed with the pregnancy termination.”
•“My service frequently sees patients with early pre-eclampsia, often referred to by the term ‘toxemia.’ Pre-eclampsia usually complicates later gestation, but occasionally complicates pregnancy as early as 18 to 20 weeks, well before the fetus is viable. The only treatment for severe pre-eclampsia is delivery. Otherwise, the condition will worsen, exposing the mother to kidney failure, liver failure, stroke and death. One Christmas morning I had to leave my own family so that I could provide a pregnancy termination for a remarkably sick, pre-eclamptic teenager.”
These are women suffering from the most serious of health conditions. If HR 358 were in place, they could be denied the emergency care they need.
The attention Republicans are focusing on the private lives of women – what American families do with their own money – makes it clear that their real goal is to ban all abortions and end access to birth control and contraceptives.
Republicans don’t want government to protect the water we drink, the air we breathe, or the food we eat – but they do want to intrude in a women’s right to choose.
We are now at 280 days in this Congress without passing a jobs plan – yet the Republican majority has consistently managed to pass extreme and divisive legislation targeted at women’s health.
The Administration strongly opposes HR 358, and this bill has no chance of becoming law.
We are running out of legislative days left before the end of the year. When is the Republican majority going to focus on jobs and the economy?
Now is the time to work on the issues that are most important to Americans – creating jobs and improving the economy – rather than restricting reproductive choice and access to family planning.
This legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back women’s health and rights. It is too extreme for women, too extreme for America, and we must reject it."
Clear enough? Contrary to your wishes and mindset, I am trying to deliver the truth to you. I know it often goes against what you believe, but don't blame me for that.

Mr. PracticalOctober 27, 2011 - 12:45 pm

Mike, how do you know what I believe regarding a woman's right to chose? I have mentioned it here from time to time but my guess is you don't recollect.
I've also said many times that I there are some things I don't like regarding the Republican party. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what this representative's statements since I haven't had time to determine if it's a valid argument based on what's actually in the bill.
Interesting though that you originally brought you used this "Wedge Issue" in the same way that you criticize Republicans of.

mike kirchubelOctober 27, 2011 - 1:00 pm

Mr. P, I find it hard to believe that you can't remember why i posted that rather lengthy speech. It was because you and Marci alleged that the Republican abortion bill wasn't a danger to American women. You two went back and forth about how i make things up. That post was meant to provide you with the information you were unable or unwilling to find yourself. I really don't care about your views on abortion, i just don't like being called a liar.

mike kirchubelOctober 27, 2011 - 3:55 pm

Mr. PracticalOctober 27, 2011 - 4:03 pm

Mike, I'm going to start calling you Chubby Checker since you like to do the twist!
I don't buy you're whole wedge issue conspiracy. I know you don't like being called a liar so let's call it a fabrication. My point was, you were doing the same thing here that you were accusing Republicans of.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 4:26 pm

mike kirchubelOctober 27, 2011 - 9:17 pm

I didn't think you would believe the politician, that's why i used a quote with a doctor's take on it. I now know that no amount of proof would ever change the minds of those who can only trust and believe.

SavetheRepublicOctober 25, 2011 - 10:03 am

SavetheRepublicOctober 25, 2011 - 10:17 am

____________ to the left of me, jokers on the right,
Here I am stuck in the middle with you
Fill in the blank
Thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q
Actually maybe .2% of the population has woke up. That both sides are bad, this would constitute the middle.
Thanks

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 10:35 am

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 3:28 pm

One day in the Utopian future, the fingerprints of someone who doesn't return a shopping cart will automatically appear on a central screen and a large fine will be garnered from their wages or welfare check.

jsbatsonOctober 25, 2011 - 4:48 pm

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 5:36 pm

Hey Mike, here's something really "funny" for you. What do you think of Obama spending a glittering evening with the wealthy Hollywood crowd and pocketing $38,500 from each fawning sycophant--and doesn't allow the media to photograph it? The next day this hypocrite you defend goes to some low-end waffle dive and brings the media along. LOL Same PR group that brought Michelle to Target, alerted AP, then told her to smile. GMAB!
W. and Laura never pulled a fast one like the Obamas who could write a monograph about deception and dishonor. Maybe they'd let you ghost-write it. :)

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 5:46 pm

Marci, the Bush family was far more sinister in their dealings. I won't go on because the facts about his murderous treason-filled adminstration speak for themselves. There are absolutely no comparisons to be made in that regard.

tcc43October 25, 2011 - 7:16 pm

Marci--Why waste any more time B-S-ing with these yahoos? The 2012 election results will be our only validation. I am more convinced than ever that the old saying: "Liberalism is a mental disorder," is true. If these people actually believe what they are saying, they should be locked up--or at least neutered. They could be the New Castrati! Check that--they already are.

Debbie GanthnerOctober 25, 2011 - 5:47 pm

mike kirchubelOctober 25, 2011 - 5:59 pm

W never pulled a fast one? To paraphrase you: L.O.L. :)
Try cutting down on your Fox fix. Only watch it for 23 hours tomorrow and then 22 and then 21 and then 20. Stabilize there for a few days. I wouldn't want you to get brain bends.

CD BrooksOctober 26, 2011 - 9:16 am

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 6:50 pm

Barack + Michelle = HYPOCRITES
Get a grip, you libs! ("Murderous," "treason," CD. LOL) When no facts are available--attack! LOL We're talking hypocrites here. Maybe you don't understand that means to say one thing and do another, i.e., with Obama vociferously giving a vocal bird to Wall Street, then quietly taking their money in the form of campaign contributions.
The Obamas are hypocrites with a capital "H." They obviously think very little of the intelligence of the average liberal. Since you condone this behavior, you fit the mold.

ArtimusOctober 25, 2011 - 7:14 pm

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 8:36 pm

Thanks, Artimus!
CD, you really can't condone habitual lying from the president?! Obama promised to bring peace and harmony to the American people, but he's gone out of his way to do the opposite. He supports the occupiers because they bring chaos while diverting our attention from the economy. It's not working because conservatives know how to focus on what's important--namely the economy. New figures out today bring the total of those dissatisfied with Obama up to 69-70% and it includes liberals and independents too. Obama's presidency is in trouble big time.

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 8:51 pm

Marci, Obama is getting the shaft, that is how I see it, that is how America will see it and that will be the downfall of the Republicans. Well, that and their candidates. A year as we all know is an eternity in politics. Obama will prevail and the Republican machine will have to begin backing him. They are the problem here, not the president.

CD BrooksOctober 25, 2011 - 9:00 pm

I will close for the evening with my oft-stated assertions. Fox started it, the Republican Party ran with it and the snow ball grew. Now we are in a miserable mess they created and continue to press. The truth shall prevail and the president will be reelected and turn this country into a beautiful place as it once was. End of story. Good night!

MarciOctober 25, 2011 - 9:05 pm

You feel sorry for Obama, CD?! Really?! Obama is thriving on the misery of the American people. A president who loved this country would create millions of jobs overnight by overturning the moritoriums on drilling, coal mining, fishing while dropping most of the job-defying regulations. He wouldn't have his AG sue states for protecting their borders. He wouldn't force an unpopular healthcare bill that most of us hate.
Obama buys votes by giving greedy Americans money that doesn't belong to them in the form of unending unemployment, now more subprime loans, canceling college loans, and the list goes on and on.
All that Obama has going for him is is gift for lies and deception. Americans are catching on, though many of us knew his kind from the start.

CD BrooksOctober 26, 2011 - 7:37 am

Marci, good morning. If I feel sorry for anybody it would be the American people and what we have been put through because of ridiculous political sword waving. And yes to be honest, I have never wavered in my support for Obama and the fact he is getting trashed every day. I really have worn this out but I am firm in my support and quite certain of the outcome as I have laid it out. And just so you know Marci, and I have said this often, I understand exactly how you feel the frustration and anger towards this president. I remember when I was in that position so I appreciate your feelings, I simply do not agree.

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 8:13 am

Good morning, CD. Truth be told--I have been unhappy with every president the last several decades at one time or another--in both parties. With Obama, it's different. He is so obviously anti-American and anti-capitalism that it goes way past simple bloopers. Some people just can't seem to get beyond 'the first black president' scenario to give Obama the vetting he never received from the lamestreams.
CD, we keep going 'round Robin Hood's barn with me pointing out specific instances of how Obama is ruining the country and lying through his pearly whites, while you defend him because you like him.
How can you condone deficit spending and the downgrade of our credit rating? How can you condone his blatant lies about the GOP? I'm not expecting an answer, because you obviously do not want to face even these facts.

CD BrooksOctober 26, 2011 - 9:10 am

Marci, I will always respond to you, you just won't like my answers. We have always disagreed on "the facts" and that is just personal choices and interpretation. I have addressed the downgrade as an over-reaction and a mistake. That has been investigated (and conveniently silenced) for what it was, an act of ignorance perpetuated with Republican support. The Obama lies Marci? Really? I have done way too much research on the GOP, FOX and their ambiguous reporting for too many years. Bottom line, the GOP is entirely responsible for their failures which are obstructive and mean-spirited. That is how I see it.

FredOctober 25, 2011 - 8:14 pm

SavetheRepublicOctober 25, 2011 - 9:01 pm

Mind Control The Truth will set you free, fight the programming.
Do not go over the Rainbow.
Please do not sell your soul because there is heck to pay.
All available on www.amazon.com
Thanks For The Memories ... The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope's and Henry Kissinger's Mind-Controlled Slave by Brice Taylor (Mar 15, 1999)
Unshackled: A Survivor's Story of Mind Control by Kathleen Sullivan (Dec 1, 2003)
Trance: Formation of America by Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips (Aug 8, 2005)
The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska by John W. DeCamp (Aug 16, 2011)

FDCOctober 25, 2011 - 8:02 pm

Keeping up with the JonesesOctober 25, 2011 - 8:34 pm

You are correct FDC, but I think most of us get the joke that Mike made...If you don't you might like this qoute from Will Rogers...
"You've got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you've got to be a humorist to stay one"...
Happy FDC...lol

Keeping up with the JonesesOctober 25, 2011 - 9:05 pm

SavetheRepublicOctober 25, 2011 - 9:37 pm

SavetheRepublic
October 25, 2011 - 9:01 pm
Mind Control The Truth will set you free, fight the programming.
Do not go over the Rainbow.
Please do not sell your soul because there is heck to pay.
All available on http://www.amazon.com
Thanks For The Memories … The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s Mind-Controlled Slave by Brice Taylor (Mar 15, 1999)
Unshackled: A Survivor’s Story of Mind Control by Kathleen Sullivan (Dec 1, 2003)
Yes Yes I get your message. John Lennon was taken out by an MK-Ultra type.
So who is next on the list ????????????????????????
Trance: Formation of America by Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips (Aug 8, 2005)
The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska by John W. DeCamp (Aug 16, 2011)

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 12:14 am

Mike KirchubelOctober 25, 2011 - 8:47 pm

I am enjoying the bashing. Thanks. The correct Will Rogers quote is: "There's no trick being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you." I was at a meeting all day and only had my phone. And I DID say I was paraphrasing. Apologies accepted. Thank you.

FDCOctober 26, 2011 - 5:25 am

Mike, to paraphrase is to express the meaning of something written or spoken using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity. In your case, you deliberately misquoted that great American humorist to achieve your own hateful ends. To paraphrase you in your style: "I am not enjoying being pointed out to be a liar."

Mr. PracticalOctober 26, 2011 - 6:11 am

Mike KirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 6:28 am

I can't believe you are calling me out on a quote I said I was paraphrasing. PARAPHRASING. Well, if that's all you've got - go for it - I mean really rub my face in it. If it will make you feel better, I'm fine with it. I'll sit back for one more week knowing I've completely destroyed yet another key Republican foundational premise without any of you able to provide one shred of information to counter it. Apology accepted.

Mr. PracticalOctober 26, 2011 - 7:04 am

Mike's "paraphrasing"... "It’s easy being funny when you have the whole Republican Party working for you."
Will Rogers' quote..."It's easy being a humorist when you've got the whole government working for you."
You could call Mike's twist a play on Rogers' quote but it is not paraphrasing. Totally different meaning. So, it's either poor writing or intentional deception. America, you decide.

The SugarJarOctober 26, 2011 - 8:18 am

He is attempting to give credit for the idea to the original writer/speaker, Will Rogers. That is why he used the word "paraphrasing" for lack of a better term, that he was aware if, to explain his intent.
Mike has, I believe, also indicated that he is NOT a "professional" writer by trade. It is a hobby which goes along with his research on the topics in his book. That he is imperfect in his writing, for example not knowing the difference between a newspaper column and a newspaper article, doesn't mean his topics, or his writing style, have no usefulness or give no enjoyment to some of those who read it.
My take is Mike is a bright, regular guy, who discovered something in his reading and research. He saw the proofs of that in the words of our historical figures. Some might see the same words and draw a different conclusion. However, Mike was pretty excited about what he saw and wanted to share it, thinking 1) that if others knew they would see it as he did; and 2) that what he discovered would surprise a lot of people.
That's part of how I see it. No intended deception. No point in leveling bad writing charges. He has his perspective and expresses it in a somewhat unique and often entertaining way. He tries to stimulate conversation around the issues he brings up. If he doesn't write professionally enough, is too arrogant or some other of his probably numerous defects or imagined defects, well whaddya gonna do?
Question his integrity? That seems inappropriate and inaccurate. Insult his writing skills? What's the point of that, or ant if the other derogatory line-crossing comments that make or "break" the comment section?
No offense meant to Mike, or to Mr. Practical (as I've tagged on to his comment to reply to).

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 8:51 am

No offense taken. I appreciate you sticking up for me. I am just a regular guy and yes I did find something vile and evil in America's historical record that I think every citizen should know. That's a very good way to put it. Thank you again.

Mr. PracticalOctober 26, 2011 - 9:10 am

Mike, that's sweet and all, but I'm still curious whether you just misused the word paraphrasing or intentionally led readers to believe that the intent of Rogers' quote was derogatory to Republicans. Seems a bit minipulative to me.
BTW... all of here are just regular guys and gals. There is no distinction in that regard.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 9:28 am

Mr. P, i used the word, paraphrase to let the reader know these were not his words but close to it. Virtually anybody else would have laughed - as i do when when you guys dig at the Dems. The fact that you persist at scratching barren ground instead of disproving any part of my article makes me think that this is as close to political gold as you're going to get. Please, continue your diversion, distractions, and deflections. Oh, and don't forget to blame me for that too.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 10:02 am

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 9:03 am

Mike seeks to deceive us because he knows how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of libs. It is frustrating for him that conservatives and (many) independents fight back with the power of the truth and the evidence of destruction we see all around us.
Evidently, he's masochistic to boot. :)

Keeping up with the JonesesOctober 25, 2011 - 9:17 pm

Doyle WisemanOctober 26, 2011 - 10:12 am

Outstanding commentary. And timely as more people around the country begin to appreciate what the 99% protests are all about. Over the coming months, I suspect that many Republcans will realize that their interests are not served by the 1%. What they do with that epiphany remains to be seen.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 10:51 am

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 11:01 am

Mike, I'll save you the time and effort and the 600 words: Obama began the systematic slaughter of the American middle class in January 2009. :) Anything you write will be another fairy tale for liberals.
I know you will conveniently omit his support for overseas companies like Brazil's oil and Finland's "green" cars. Also you'll fail to note the over-regulatory climate that closed factories here and sent them packing. I know you'll forget about energy moratoriums that have killed thousands more jobs and doubled the price of gas. I'm sure you'll fail to note Democrat Dodd and Frank and their little sub-prime scheme that ended up kicking millions of middle class families out their homes. Beyond a doubt you won't bother mentioning the fiasco called ObamaCare that will end of costing $1 trillion more than Obama's so-called economists promised--not to mention the negative impact on hiring.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 2:25 pm

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 2:28 pm

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 2:38 pm

I would characterize their reporting as factual, but not balanced. They don't insult their viewers by pretending to be something they aren't. Probably because their audience is more aware of their surroundings.

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 1:02 pm

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 1:20 pm

And don't forget to mention the Jobs Act. I don't know how accurate this is but I heard that it cost an enourmous amount to create one one job that a person would get paid at $50,000 a year. It would have been cheaper just to give the guy $100,000 for free.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 2:31 pm

It is so funny to see alleged intellectuals smash the Fox network and give it names of sort as some kind of Republican machine etc…Or calling it a bunch of lies etc..they make all kinds of claims but yet they rarely talk about some specific details that back up their talk. And that is all that it is; if they say it; it must true. However I can come up with countless examples of unfair reporting from many other sources that are considered liberal. And I think that is the difference between the Liberal left and Conservatives. Liberals don’t mind playing with intellectual dishonesty while Conservatives for the most part will not condescend to that level. Perhaps that is why Fox network is disliked by Liberals because it exposes those small little details of deception that the Liberal left is willing to play. They don’t want to be exposed and Fox network does a good job of exposing.

sgkOctober 26, 2011 - 3:57 pm

Mike,
I appreciate the speech by Rep. Schakowsky as I heard other members speak
against the bill in question. Just like your previous column no one mentioned it as the conversation turned to other things like Obama's stolen podium. Republicans would let women die who are miscarriaging whatever the reason.
I remember when birth control was illegal in a state where I lived as child.
Many women died from botched abortions by their own hands or others.
More discussion on the columns would be welcome and I am sure Mike would appreciate it.

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 5:18 pm

You should be ashamed sgk--or maybe pitied for your parroting claptrap! Only a far-left liberal would think that Republicans want women and old people to die. You and Mike sure make a dynamic duo as you skip down the path toward Obamaville. Thank God most of country has some sense. LOL. :)

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 4:37 pm

Thank you for your comment. I too have noticed that these people call me a liar and then bounce off one another without looking into the matter for themselves. When i do their homework for them, they slither off into their corners to get another Fox fix of courage only to reemerge hot on another topic.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 5:32 pm

John Stewart, who is not on MSNBC, but Comedy Central, has more believable news than Fox. I'll admit, Fox IS funnier, but not as accurate as John Stewart. How about this: I'll say that msnbc does not have balanced coverage if you'll admit that Fox doesn't either. It is true that they are polar opposites to each other and neither has a balanced stance.

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 6:28 pm

Sorry--I meant John King, but some people do get their news from Stewart (and Colbert).
Fox is much more balanced than MSNBC. True, it does shift more to the right more often than not, but they do bring in a disgustingly large amount of liberals to spout off their party line.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 5:57 pm

I remember watching the Wizard of Oz when I was a child and I knew it was a fantasy movie with made up characters. But there is one part of the movie that is my favorite and that part is when the young girl wants to go home and all she has to do is tap her heels, close her eyes and recite, “there is no place like, there is no place like home and suddenly it became so; she awoke safely in her own home.
Although this was fantasy movie; ironically I see a lot of similar thinking with Mike and his followers who; all they have to do is say something over and over again and guess what? It become true; at least only in their own minds, the only think lacking is perhaps the tapping of the heels. Just because you can say something over and over again Mike does not make it a reality. “There is no place like home, There is no place like home”.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 7:55 pm

CD BrooksOctober 27, 2011 - 10:43 am

Artimus, you can eschew everyone now because you have the most supreme of all supporters in Marci. I have always respect Marci and her passion. I respect both of you but your myopia is astounding. I’d like to hear more from you about your “countless examples of unfair reporting from many other sources that are considered liberal.” FOX’s efforts at editing and misdirecting factual audio and visual images are legendary. I have provided so much fact-based research and documented information over the many years I have posted on this site, and it all goes ignored and I get lambasted. Reverse strategy, repeat lie after lie, incendiary remarks that the sheep grab and run with, misinformation, obfuscation and flat out unabashed deceit, etc. It started with Limbaugh and then fool after lying fool joined the fray. The network of jabberwockies extraordinaire was up and running! You could see all manner of respect and honor fall out across America with these losers. Then the Republican Party climbed on their bandwagon and the rest is history. You have a Conservative sense so you are the perfect mouthpiece for these people. Funny how that very same Conservative extremism is what is going to ruin their party! You should do some research and find the facts behind the group you are supporting. You should be surprised, but maybe you will just fall in line with the rest, I don’t know? Go with a winner Artimus, the GOP aint it. You may hear otherwise, but truth is, they will crash and burn in the 2012 elections.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 11:19 am

CD, it is no secret that the networks other than Fox parrot the same sound bite and often obfuscate news that shows Obama in a bad light. That means that plenty is hidden! Sean has a weekly segment where shows the clips from 4-6 lamestreamers who all say the same thing VERBATIM about something anti-GOP or pro-Obama. It's really creepy to hear the same exact words coming from so many different news anchors.
Don't you think that Obama constantly stokes the fires of discontent and discord by constantly accusing the GOP of monstrous things like wanting to kill old people and pregnant women, or wanting dirty air and water?! Come on, CD!

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 1:23 pm

Hi C.D. I don’t mind sharing countless examples of unfair reporting with you but then you are not making cavalier statements like Mike is. He keeps saying that Fox is deceptive and Fox is this and Fox is that without any specific examples. I asked him for just one which he has refused to give. He would rather just rant off statements without any examples and expect us to consume it. And little ole me just want one little morsel of an example but I guess I will leave hungry. You just gave one example using Limbaugh much more then I could say for Mike. And really it’s not about Republican or Democrat or the specific strategic methods we use but rather it’s our own personal convictions that we hold which give voice to those who we feel will best represent us as citizens but let’s be fair in reporting and my claim is that the Liberal left is not fair for the most part. It is not equal as SugarJar and Mike claim.

CD BrooksOctober 27, 2011 - 3:24 pm

Hi guys! It is SO true even when watching the throw-away "entertainment" stations how there is such a rush to be first. Marci, I agree that several stations will repeat and I don't know if it is a slow news day or laziness? We are all on the hook for our governemnt's antics and until they decide it is time to work together, we will continue taking the brunt. Marci, there have been many like comments from both sides some of which if taken in context (Artimus loves context!) would be better understood. This is a dog fight and I am afraid no more will be solved before the break. That really sucks!

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 3:41 pm

CD, I appreciate your interest in compromise and commend you for your general bonhomie mood. However, it is the president who sets the tone. Obama makes repeated digs about the Republicans, knowing full well that it breeds hostility and negative feelings. He wants to portray himself as above the fray, when in actuality, he aims the first punch--again, and again, and again. It's all part of his CREEP plan (and I emphasize the acronym).
Lincoln didn't want the South to be treated harshly after the Civil War (when they certainly deserved to be) and he tried his best to bring both sides together so the nation could heal. Unfortunately, zealots like Booth weren't appeased. ("Killing Lincoln" has worthwhile account.)

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 10:35 pm

Last 2 sentences of Artimus' comment--saying both conservatives and liberals do the same thing isn't the same as saying both are equal in the quantity or intensity. Our disagreement would actually come in the which side is the most guilty based on whatever the chosen criteria. Likely conservatives would see liberals aa more guilty and liberals, conservatives. Not likely a useful discussion.

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 10:47 pm

SugarJar, I have asked Mike many times for just one example where there was unfairness from the Conservative right. The reason I asked was not because I wanted to compare which side was more innocent or guilty that you seem to spin on but rather his constant accusations of calling the Conservative right many names with slogan type remarks. And on top of that you seem to support him which is the reason why I called you on your own unfair false remarks on the Tea Party as being racist. Perhaps SugarJar you might be able to provide one example of unfair reporting from the Conservative right since your pal Mike won’t do it. Remember it’s not about my comparison it’s about all the cavalier statements of how evil Fox is; I am just calling you and Mike on it. I got many examples on my end; do you?

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 11:00 pm

No. I am done trying to explain things to you or discuss anything with you. You are theoretically capable of discovering the intricacies of reality on your own.
I am done "defending" myself when you misunderstand or misremember. Take that however you wish.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 9:27 pm

ArtimusOctober 28, 2011 - 12:02 am

SugarJar stop it with the victim role. What are you defending yourself from? Either you said that comment or you did not. It is not a big deal. I specifically remember you making that comment which you deny. Are you saying that you do not remember? And if that is so; that’s ok, there would be nothing to defend unless you are being deceptive. What is so theoretical about understanding that? I must have forgotten to tell you that I have a real good memory.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 6:20 pm

In case you missed it SugarJar which I think you did; it is the repetition of something that has no proof that is repeated over and over again. Kind of like your previous comments that you have made. You don’t seem to have any problem with the protesters who are committing crimes, smoking pot and using drugs, vandalizing private businesses and assaulting Officers but you were so eager to accuse some peaceful people holding up signs on Travis Blvd and what did you call it? They are intimidating and are harassing. Do you remember SugarJar or is your memory selective that you only want to repeat something with no proof?

The SugarJarOctober 26, 2011 - 6:33 pm

I've said nothing that is untrue or deceptive. I've not slammed groups of American citizens for exercising their rights, nor have I been insulting or said derogatory things about any of the commentors.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 8:31 pm

Oh Sugarjar you do have selective memory. Weren’t you the one that claimed that the Tea Party were racist and that there was documentation to it? Of course I had already heard about the claim and had researched it only to find out that it was false and that there was absolutely no proof to it. The liberal media had to no problem jumping on that like a fly on rotting meat even though there was no evidence and confirmed as a lie. And what do you do Sugar? You repeat it as though it was true and that is deceptive. The Liberal tactic is to repeat something that is false and if found out that it was not true; the damage has already been done and perhaps others will continue to believe the lie to be true.

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 8:37 pm

Artimus, she praises Mike for Pete's sake. Don't expect to get through the liberal block. Maybe she'll share her experiences at the Fairfield occupiers free-for-all. LOL
Good analogy about the liberal media!

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 9:02 pm

I know that she worships Mike but I can’t help myself catching her in those awkward moments. It is kind of like someone running the stop sign in the middle of the night when you think nobody is watching only to realize that a cop is right there waiting for you….BUSTED, please sign here and there is nothing to say.

The SugarJarOctober 26, 2011 - 9:04 pm

The SugarJarOctober 26, 2011 - 8:58 pm

I have a darn good memory. I remember what I say, as well as what you say and what Marci says. I also notice that when I say some tea party events had racist bits, you say I call the tea party racist. Your research into it was flawed. Mine was not and did not involve the media that you are familiar with.
At one point Marci had indicated there were some racist elements, but not local and did not color the movement as a whole. In get more recent posts she seemed to have forgotten that, or changed her mind and recanted.
It is not particularly useful to me to continue to treat you respectfully in my disagreement with your view when you continue to be so disrespectful.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 9:10 pm

I don't think I am being disrespectful. I am recalling your own comments and showing your own contradictions in your own thinking pattern. And how you are so eager to paint groups like the Tea Party and those peaceful protesters on Travis blvd as sinister but you don’t seem to have a problem with those protestors currently causing havoc. Perhaps it’s not disrespectful but uncomfortable; please sign here and by signing you are not admitting guilt but promising to appear on the date and time. Please drive carefully.

The SugarJarOctober 26, 2011 - 9:33 pm

Artimus, you take parts of my comments and selectively interpret them or reinterpret them to mean what you want them to mean. You do not show me errors in my logic. What you do is reveal your own lack of understanding. Is it deliberate or is it an inability on your part? Rhetorical question.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 10:55 am

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 11:09 am

You may have admitted it as fringe or as there might be as it was a big spread out movement. You always held that local was devoid of racism and I took that at face value.
It isn't a lie. I do understand that you seem either to not recall, not want to recall, or have reconsidered you earlier venture into reality by admitting the possibilty that out of all those people, some may have had racist signage/t-shirts. I believe at one point you'd said that any racist activity (signs or so on) was provided by liberal detractors at the rallies. Since obviously it would be impossible for a tea partier to also show any racist tendencies.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 11:26 am

Go ahead and twist my words like a string of licorice. Of course you're correct, you're a lib. :) Paid political operatives are employed by the liberals and appear everywhere--including WS protests. IF there were any racist signs at a Tea Party rally, the person(s) were told to leave.

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 7:30 am

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 6:34 pm

Artimus, from what I heard on Fox, the lamestreams are not showing the pot and the mounds of garbage and the anarchy or mentioning the anti-Semetic rants.
One of the ringleaders of the party, Foot-in-Mouth Biden, is instrumental in spreading lies that are repeated on the lamestream networks as gospel. That nonsense about the GOP's treatment of women is a prime example. Shariah Law doesn't bother them, but lying about women bleeding to death is OK.
The story I indentify with is "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" because I've felt like I fell down the rabbit hole the last three years.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 7:59 pm

MarciOctober 26, 2011 - 8:30 pm

Yeah, bet you don't know the half of what is really going on because your news media of choice censors everything that is anti-Obama--which is more and more each day. I don't need Fox to interpret cops in riot gear in Oakland.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 8:35 pm

Instead of always repeating how evil Fox is; why don’t you tell us Mike regarding a specific lie or deception or unfairness you have observed Fox to report so all of us can examine it for ourselves. Meanwhile; all you are doing is practicing the Alice in Wonderland philosophy; if you repeat something over and over again people will start to believe it even if it is untrue.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 8:53 pm

He used scare tactics to say that if the Obama bill will not pass there will be an increase of rape, murder, burglary and robbery. You see the deception in this? That means if you vote against the bill; you are for rape, murder, burglary and robbery. And recently he was confronted by a news reporter who approached him very respectfully and asked if Mr. Vice President regretted using those terms to pass the bill. At first he denied it but then I think he realized that there were cameras and recording equipment and started being defensive and eventually walked away. This is the type of leaders that are running this country using back room parlor mafia tactics to do what ever they are doing.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 8:45 pm

Examine this; Is it true that the Liberal media refused to report the anti-Semitism remarks by an Occupier being interviewed? Correct me if I am wrong; but I heard that the only people making report of that was Conservative reports and that NBC and I think CBS were contacted and asked why that was not reported. Their claim was that there was not enough evidence worthy to report any Anti Semitism remarks even though there was an actual footage of those remarks.
However when false claims that a Tea Party member used the “N” word the liberal media swamped on that and made reports on it even though there was no evidence to it. Do you see the difference in the fairness that is taking place between the Liberal left and the Conservative right reporting? This is just one example and I am addressing a detail and not using the Alice in Wonderland philosophy by repeating something over and over again to without any evidence because that is deceptive.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 9:04 pm

Yes I see rhe difference: From what tou have just said, the conservative media reports things rhat fall into their political slant, while the "liberal" media actually requires proof that something actually happened. Yes, there is a vast difference. Thank you for pointing that out for all of us.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 9:16 pm

Again you give no specific example and you spin it by saying that the Liberal media reports only those things with proof? Why is it then that the Liberal media reports on racist allegations against the Tea Party when there is absolutely no proof and yet refuses to report on Anti-Semitism remarks with a live video as proof? Yes, there is a vast difference but I think you might have who reports with proof backwards.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 9:25 pm

I see Obama is up to it again. Going on talk shows and trying to sell himself all over again. Rubbing elbows with the rich to raise funds for his campaign and while there is nothing wrong with that; why are cameras not allowed? It seems to me that he wants to present himself as this kind, smiling normal working class person so you can vote for him. He does not want to present himself as this rich person who talks a big game on taxing the rich.

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 9:47 pm

Come on SugarJar; did you or did you not post a comment in the past regarding the false reporting that Tea Party members were making racist remarks? Either that is true or not. What am I interpreting in that? Either you did or you did not. And also, did you or did you not ever make a comment that those people who were peacefully holding up signs were a form of harassment and a form of intimidation to others? By pointing out these contradictions reveal an intellectual dishonesty that many Liberals have no problem with; that is all. Don’t take it as disrespectful; I just speak like that.

The SugarJarOctober 26, 2011 - 10:20 pm

My comments on the tea party were not related to remarks made. My comments were regarding signs I saw myself and tea party setting up anti-Muslim speakers for some of their rallies. I believe the speakers were in Florida.
The peaceful protesters could be seen as intimidating. That would be an interpretation not a contradiction.
I'm done trying to help people with their poor memories or inability to interpret data in anything other than their usual manner. I don't have the patience.

mike kirchubelOctober 26, 2011 - 11:30 pm

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 4:28 am

ArtimusOctober 26, 2011 - 11:57 pm

SugarJar; you sure know how play possum and now putting a spin on things as though someone misinterpreted your remarks. You stated something to the effect that there were racist remarks made by the Tea Party and there was proof of that documentation. And I held you accountable to provide that proof which never came because there was none. Now you are changing your story to say that you saw yourself the Tea Party setting up Anti-Muslim speakers for their rallies? REALLY! Anti-Muslim; now I would love to hear more, now you are making a total different claim that I have never heard before. You see what I am talking about?
You made a comment that was false and whether you believed it to be true or not at the time showed your contradiction of being fair. It did not matter whether the statement was true or false but the importance was to intentionally paint the group as racist and that is exactly the point that I am making to show that Liberals will say things that are not true as long as it does the damage. It is the same thing that you refer to those nice peaceful protestors on Travis Blvd as being intimidating with no proof other then your cunning way of trying to paint them as something sinister but now you choose to use other terms. You see what I am talking about? I know your game. Stop with the victim possum role; I don’t have problems with interpretation; I have problems with people who try to feed bull stuff.

CD BrooksOctober 27, 2011 - 10:31 am

Artimus, not sure why you like to take on The Sugar Jar? That person always brings a fair take on their opinion and I don't believe it has ever been intended as mean or slighting anybody. Did somebody bring up the abortion group at Travis or are you making your own comparisons? I have not heard that from anyone else regarding the OWS. There was plenty of evidence in the early stages of their movement where fringe groups got in and made the Tea Party look racist. I spoke with Marci about that and we know now, they are not. The Republican Party however, does have their share of racism and immoral activity but you can find that information anywhere.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 11:12 am

Hi, CD. While it may have been somewhat true before, since SJ (apologies if I typed SG again elsewhere!!) jumped on Mike's bandwagon-to-oblivion, her attempts at civility have dissipated faster than Obama's delivery of hope and change.
Unfortunately, CD, there will always be people with hatred for someone's looks, rather than their character.
Like many conservatives, Artimus is also disgusted with the lies and cheap shots aimed at conservatives for our beliefs and to the leaders for presenting common-sense solutions.

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 11:14 am

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 1:09 pm

Hi C.D. this discussion is not about abortion or whether the Tea Party is racist or not; it’s about the fairness in how things are reported whether they are true or false. SugarJar and Mike both seem to think that both sides are equal in their reporting practices which I disagree. That is the main debate; while SugarJar tries to present herself as right; I am recalling her own remarks where she says that the Tea Party have made racist remarks and that there was proof to that documentation. However at the time it was already that it was not true but SugarJar had no problem spreading a lie. It is not about anything else except that SugarJar got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and the only thing I don't have is a photo with that surprised look on her face... ;)

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 1:40 pm

If I was going to follow your logic C.D. in that the Tea Party might have had some members in the beginning with racist ideology and thus we should just throw them away I would say that well we should also throw away the Democratic Party. The Tea Party has grown into a respectful Political organization whether you embrace their ideas or not. In the early 1920’s most Democratic Politicians were members of the KKK; should we throw them away also? I say no and that would be an unfair charge for they also grew into a respectful organization whether I embrace them or not.
Besides if we are willing turn a blind eye to Obama’s Pastors racist remarks that are caught on video where Obama spent 20 years attending his church I don’t see why we need to be walking around with a magnify glass peeking behind each corner to see if we can detect a particle of racist from the Tea Party.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 2:42 pm

Not only were democrats part of the KKK, but they were for slavery and the Southern Bloc was against the Civil Rights bill in the 60s. Why blacks (or anyone else for that matter) insist on supporting democrats is really surprising.

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 12:01 am

Mike; still waiting for that one example that shows an unfairness from Fox since you are always quoting them as some evil Conservative force. I got many examples on my end; how about just one and only one Mike....Come on Mike; man up; show me the proof so I can become a believer or is it all talk?

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 4:21 am

No. I was wasting my time trying to explain. No changes of story. No spin. Simply me attempting communication with you. You do not read or understand thoroughly. You don't remember what was actually written in words. Perhaps you have better things to do then attempt any two-way communication. I'm not playing here.
I'm no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt. Knock yourself out with "the way you talk".

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 1:44 pm

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 1:57 pm

Once more you would be looking at it and getting it wrong. It is rare to never that I'd say all of any group would be any particular way. Or that a group would always (or never) be a particular way.
It isn't how I think.
Some of the posters, however, hear good job on this week's column Mike, or I saw a racist carrying a sign in Fairfield. Then somehow it becomes thar person is a follower and supporter of Mike's every move. And either everyone in Fairfield is a racist--or--you said everyone in Fairfield is a racist.
If you want to appropriately make stuff up about me or what I am about you will need to use terms like some or sometimes...

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 2:24 pm

Now we finally may be making progress. To which racist sign in Fairfield are you referring? All the Tea Party rallies I attended were either in Sacramento or Pleasanton.
If you consistently praise Mike's column, then one would logically think you endorse his views.
I don't make up things about people. I leave that to your side.

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 3:02 pm

1. No FF racist sign. That was meant as an example. Overhear it and think it means some all/always thing. Such as all fairfielders are racist or The SugarJar said all fairfielders are racist!
2. One conclusion of praising someone is that you agree with everything the praised says or does. It is not the most obvious conclusion, however.
2 (cont.) Putting myself (or if you put yourself in as the person praising another with someone you might praise for something) in the equation . I rarely, if ever, agree with everything another says or does even if I routinely praise them for some thing they do.

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 3:52 pm

You are not making this easy Marci. The Tea Party is no part of my silly example. It is you that brought it in. Twice.
If you still think my silly make-believe example has something to do with the tea party, I'm not explaining it any further. I'm obviously not the right person for the job.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 4:08 pm

CD BrooksOctober 27, 2011 - 3:33 pm

The Sugar Jar, I think you always bring a considerate point of view until someone gets after you. Even then you "let them down easy." I would never suggest you intentionally say something less than thoughtful and certainly not rude. But I like differences of opinion, isn't that why we're here? :)

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 3:45 pm

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 4:00 pm

CD, thanks for the encouragement. I, too, value differences of opinion--after all that's where the learning is--but I'm attempting to uphold my part in civility and following my understanding of the terms of use of the DR website.

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 10:06 pm

Believe me C.D. I am not being hard on SugarJar; she knows exactly what I am talking about and she is playing the damsel in distress part so well. She is a very intelligent woman who knows what she is doing and doing it very well. Civility is the exchanging of thoughts in a civil manner in a fair mutual way which is exactly what I am pointing out in her previous intentional false comment that she made in order to deceive just like the unfair reporting practices. I merely exposed her which is the cause of all this dialogue that supposedly I am now the bad guy that needs the patience of civility and now she needs encouragement as a damsel; believe me she is very intelligent and playing her part real good, right now.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 7:39 am

Artimus, Mike and Sugar Jar are entrenched in the liberal philosophy of demonize-demonize because they have no real facts to back up the false rhetoric they parrot from MSNBC or make up as they go along.
True, MSNBC et al. did not report on the anti-Semetic taunts because it just wasn't important enough (to them). Where SJ came up with her anti-Muslim Tea Party signs--only heaven knows.

mike kirchubelOctober 27, 2011 - 1:23 pm

I find it hard to believe that there are still people out there who have never heard of : OUTFOXED. Luckily it is available for viewing on the internet for free. If you have trouble getting on the internet, let me know.

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 10:12 am

A good example of Marci's mental acuity. Really, just one of many. I said nothing about anti-Muslim signs. I said speakers. Taking the written word or taking a situation you have experienced and perceiving it differently from another person based on your own perceptual abilities and your knowledge and experience is one thing. Moving the words or the facts around to suit yourself rather than reality is quite another.
Mike seems to prefer to give you the benefit if the doubt--that you do it on purpose. This would make you a bad person. Should you do this accidently, you'd be a sloppy person. If you do this but can't do any better, then it makes you a person with cognitive impairments. There may be other explanations I've not thought of or mentioned.
It may be easy to make me tire of dealing with the Marci type of online behavior. And perhaps she enjoys the way she "communicates". In the long run it doesn't add to a civil dialogue.

mike kirchubelOctober 27, 2011 - 9:53 am

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 10:40 am

Gee--SugarJar! I don't whether to title that little rant as "The Mouse that Roared" or "Much Ado About Nothing."
If you think I misquoted you, the civil way to handle it would be to mention it as I didn't do it purposely. If anything, my "mental acuity" was on medium-high rather than high at the time. But where is your "mental acuity" to accuse Tea Partiers of any racial bias?!
Name calling is a no-no: "bad person, sloppy, not a civil dialogue." Looks like another case of the pot calling the kettle black--(not a racial slur btw). Next you'll exclaim unequivocally that I mistreat my cats. LOL
As for Mike giving everyone the benefit of the doubt--GMAB, LOL.

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 10:54 am

Apparently it isn't only Mike's posts that you can barely read. Mike giving you the benefit of the doubt that you purposefully misrepresent others. I am open to it being one of the other reasons I mentioned.
When I need civility lessons I'll not ask the person who refers to a group of Americans protesting as a (bowel) movement.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 11:03 am

mike kirchubelOctober 27, 2011 - 10:54 am

Just as you accuse the OWS of being filty pigs because they chose to protest by sitting-in rather than by waving guns, then, using the same standards of " one represents them all," you must accept the fact that the TP has some racists in it.

MarciOctober 27, 2011 - 11:01 am

Racism is about skin color, don't you know Mike. I saw mostly whites in the news clips. If you don't think fecal matter and urine in the streets is the result of "filthy pigs," then maybe it's just a day at beach to you.
What really interesting here, is the heated-up rhetoric from the left. They have to attack because they see their party in disrepair, disrepute, and disarray.

The SugarJarOctober 27, 2011 - 11:22 am

Heated up rhetoric? Attack? There is something terribly wrong with (at least) one of your filters.
I would prefer civility from the commentors. -- for those I disagree with as well as those I agree with. Your preferences may be different than mine.

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 12:19 pm

SugurJar you do have selective memory. Right now you are talking about everything and anything to avoid the reality of your own contradiction of fairness. I do specifically remember you saying that the Tea Party was reported to be racist and that there was documentation to that. Right now you are painting yourself as a damsel in distress and accuse others of being disrespectful, miss interpreting your comments and using rhetoric attack to avoid being caught with your hand in the cookie jar Sugarjar and you don’t want to admit a wrong on your part.
Now you and I know the truth SugarJar and I was pressuring to see which road you would take. Would you take the higher road and admit that the report that you mentioned of the Tea Party being racist was in fact not true? Which by the way is not a big deal to admit that a report was not true. Or would you take the neutral road and hope nobody noticed your comment and quickly forgotten? Or would you take the low road and blatantly deny it if somebody brought it up? It does not matter which road you take; it’s not me that has to look you in the mirror everyday; its you that has to look at yourself in the mirror everyday and you and I know the truth SugarJar.

Mike KirchubelOctober 28, 2011 - 1:24 pm

Art, they are through moderating my post from last night. Here is all the proof a normal person could want - right above. Go ahead and click on a few. I've done the really hard part for you by typing: "tea party racism" on Google. Can we now move on from this too?

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 7:30 am

Artimus, that isn't an educated last best guess, is it? There is unfair reporting on both sides but not to the degree FOX has done. Heck, they invented cheating, LOL! You can side with FOX and the Republicans because of your Conservative beliefs that is all fine and good. But a man of your obvious intelligence and I mean that sincerely, cannot ignore the facts even when other Republicans aren't sure they ever even met a fact they were aware of. There are hundreds of crystal clear examples of FOX editing scandals and the Republican bandwagon that now continues to enable them. You can easily see the final and intended results of those devious fools on this site from fellow GOP/Tea Party supporters and FOX "news."

ArtimusOctober 29, 2011 - 12:38 am

Mike, thank you for those links that you call homework but I have seen most of theme already and they are known as common knowledge of being bias. I mean we all use Google so that is so easy. I really thought you were going to present some actual proof that the Tea Party was a racist organization. Don’t you find it suspicious in the YouTube presentation where suddenly there is a photo of a KKK person with an American Flag and no background as though it was slide into to present a racist thought? And don’t you find odd that a drawing with some good old boys on a back of a pick-truck is slide in there? I mean it was obvious to me that the link was made to propagate the idea of racist. To give you some credit, you do have some signs just like any other signs that protestors carry at any rally where they are protesting and some may not be very kind but that still does not prove the organization as racist.
I mean just recently you have the Liberal mass media along with Liberal comedians calling Herman Cain all kinds of names including being dumb and not being able to spell IRAQ. And nobody on the Conservative right is crying the race card and calling it racist because it would be false; it is very unkind and even cruel in attempt to assassinate his character just like they have done with Sarah Palin and Bachman but still that is not racist. It is just bias reporting; but again Mike, thanks for playing my game as you put it for providing an example in the way of using those links.

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 7:51 am

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 8:09 am

Good Morning Marci! Like Mr. Practical recently stated, you can find anyone to make your point if you look long enough. The problem here however, is that Republicans will refute evidence from the most reputable sources so an argument will always be one-sided and die on the spot and that is a typical FOX maneuver. Like I said in an earlier post, the evidence is clear the reluctance to accept it is not. I am not being facetious, just pointing out the differences in interpretation and in this case, we know FOX is viciously manipulative.

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 8:26 am

Good morning, CD. In other words, Fox is always wrong; your sources are always right?! Your "evidence" is clearly distorted as you as you look through your rose-colored glasses.
You and Mike can list sources from here to Jibip, but facts are facts. For starters:
1. The WH spent half a billion taxpayer dollars for a sinking company, Solyndra and plans for more.
2. A hypocritical president pockets tens of millions from fat cats, then yells about class warfare and how evil corporations are and sides with the occupiers.
3. A raging president uses his bully pulpit to pit one group against another instead of trying to unite.
4. A lying president tells college kids he will pay for their student loans--when in actuality some of the kids will get a $4-10/month reduction.
5. "Bi-partisan" is not in this president's lexicon, but "executive fiats" as a means to circumvent Congress is.

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 9:11 am

Marci, I disagree with every one of your assertions. The president is fighting against an entire group of politicians that will do anything to destroy him up to and including destroying this country which is exactly what is happening. Everything he does is scrutinized and demonized. Has me made msitakes? Obvioulsy, he is human. But they are not criminal in nature, they are not intentional and certainly not to ruin America.Those are preposterous claimsd created by extremists and we all know who they are.

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 9:29 am

There is no use continuing this dialogue because you really are blinded by Obama's smoke and mirrors. The Solyndra scandal doesn't exist? Obama will drop outstanding college loans? Obama hasn't accepted campaign funds from his Wall Street backers? Obama hasn't used a dozen executive fiats this week alone?
Come on, CD. Your credibility shrinks with every denial or obfuscation. Everything I wrote can be confirmed in the liberal rags, the NY Times and the Washington Post. You just want to put the blame on the GOP, the way your esteemed leaders do. LOL

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 1:29 pm

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 1:39 pm

Marci, exactly! Sort of like when we try to make claims with factuial evidence against your party? My credibility goes up everytime I write here. Why? because over time,my assertions prove themselves to be correct. I'm not arguing with you or even giving you a bad time, I am simply stating what I believe to be the truth. I expect in 2012, that will become brilliantly obvious to all.

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 1:53 pm

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 8:37 am

Marci, I was referring to your comment about Mike's sources. I KNOW my sources are correct that is why I use them. I might be a little more positive regarding some issues, that is my nature. Whatever Obama is doing may not be suitable to everyone but he has to start doing something because the GOP is leading the country to chaos.

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 9:02 am

CD, in other words, Obama's failed/deranged plans are fine, because he does something?! Lest you forget, it's Reid's Senate that shots down all the GOP ideas--like Cut, Cap, and Balance.
I'd really like your comments about the five points I made.

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 9:09 am

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 9:31 am

I’m practicing FOX-isms! Those that use this method are cool until it is used against them. I am simply redirecting the issue to make my accurate and truthful points. Only difference is, in this and most other cases, I am the one that is correct.
Gotta take off so Have a really nice day Marci!

tcc43October 29, 2011 - 10:31 am

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 1:35 pm

tcc43, Brooks-isms , I like that thank you! My argument goes to FOX editing scandals. They most certainly are verified. Check out FOX editing lies, you won't lik the results! Remember when you return, I didn't make this stuff up. OH yeah, I've been trying to tell you all this for several years now!

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 2:52 pm

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 3:05 pm

Mr. PracticalOctober 31, 2011 - 7:38 pm

Mike, congrats! You figured out Google's algorithm. If you submit the search, "Tea Party racist," you'll get page after page of exactly that. If you use the search, "Tea Party Not Racist," guess what? You get page after page of why the Tea Party is not racist.
In each instance, half of is the same stuff on multiple sites.
"

mike kirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 8:48 pm

Very good. The search engine needs a human being to pick out the relavant sites. That's your job. I just wanted youse guys to look this stuff up for yourselves. If i tell you something, you don't believe it because it came from me. I get that. If you google it on your own, you can look at dozens of sites and get a better feel for what is truth and what is not.

FDCOctober 27, 2011 - 7:32 pm

Mike. You are a coward, afraid to confess that you falsified a quote so as to spread your venom. You slither, you slide, you dodge, you weave, you try to joke your way out of the situation but the fact remains: YOU FALSIFIED A "QUOTE." You know full well the meaning of "paraphrase" and that meaning does not include falsification. You are not worthy further discussion.

Glen FaisonOctober 28, 2011 - 1:32 pm

@rlw895: I don't particularly feel the need to chime in, but since you ask, I will. @Mike Kirchubel acknowledged up front that it was not a direct quote, and later provided the actual quote for comparison. Did @Mike Kirchubel change the meaning of the original quote in his original citation? That point could be argued both ways. In fact, it has been argued both ways right here on the comments thread to his column. Republicans do control the House of Representatives, but not the entire Congress or the presidency. For my part, I credit @Mike Kirchubel for having the good sense to attribute the thought to Will Rogers and not pass it off as his own, whether it's an accurate paraphrase or not.

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 10:16 pm

Good luck FDC; I don’t think you will get anywhere with Mike. He likes the pain of someone calling him names it seems; he has no problem in making outlandish cavalier statements that have no proof other then his own word; he sticks his nose in the air if your view is different then his; he can still look himself in the mirror while shaving knowing all the false things he has said and will say that day and with joy; to avoid conflict he uses quick commercial type slogans to dodge the real issue; he has no problem in running and hiding when it gets tough for his wisdom will be that a coward continues to live the next day while a courageous man dies today. But in reality a coward dies many times and a true courageous warrior only dies once. No FDC; I don’t think you can talk reason with someone who is not interested in speaking reason. Rather it should be spoken on the battle field but the problem is that you will not find Mike there.

Mike KirchubelOctober 28, 2011 - 8:06 am

No, Art, I don't like being called names. The fact that you guys to the right do it certainly reflects more on you than me.I have provided you with testimony from a doctor that the Republican Bill would have resulted in American women dying - your response was that you can find somebody that will say anything. Brilliant. There is obviously no rebuttal to that since it eliminates any evidence anyone could ever present. You asked for information about Fox's bias and I gave you a free, online documenary to watch - did you watch it? I'm guessing , no. You asked TSJ for proof that the T.P. had a racist element - I thought that was fairly well documented by the media, but i Googled: "tea party racism" and got thousands of hits. Really it's that simple. I copied down 5 or 6 sites from the first page and tried to post it last night - it's still awaitng moderation. And then there's Crutchfield. Wow. He hit a real goldmine of dirt on me. My Will Rogers quote, which i clearly said i was paraphrasing, was some sort of horrible lie to him because i changed a word from the original. I'm sure this is no newsflash, but paraphrasing, by definition, means that there was a change from the original. Boy, you really got me that time. all in all, I still stand by the articles and nobody has ever refuted anything i have ever written. I'm not saying that day will never come - I'm only human and mistakes will surely arise. When that day comes, i'm confident that you will all be there to help me understand what i did wrong. thank you for your unflagging quest for truth.

Mr. PracticalOctober 28, 2011 - 8:42 am

Mike, being a professional, published author, I would think that the meaning of words and using them in the proper context would be important to you.
You unquestionably did not "paraphrase" Rogers' quote. All you have to do, at least for me to move on, is answer a simple question...
Did you honestly misuse the word paraphrase, or did you intentionally deceive readers to believe Rogers was referring specifically to Republicans? The answer speaks to your credibility.

Mike KirchubelOctober 28, 2011 - 9:03 am

The word "paraphrase" was not misused. This was clearly not a direct quote from Rogers and was never meant to be a direct quote. I said I was paraphrasing him and that's obviously what I did as you can see from the to quotes side by side. I never claimed that Will Rogers said that and to a normal person, the word "paraphrase" would indicate that. I was emailing from my phone - quoting from memory - and was actually surprised at how close I got to the original. Yes, I knew it wasn't quite right and so I added the word "paraphrasing" so that nobody would think it was a direct quote. I really don't think anybody actually thought I was quoting him - but Crutchfield couldn't miss an "opportunity" - real or imagined - to slam me. I wish you guys would examine you own writings as well.

Mr. PracticalOctober 28, 2011 - 9:11 am

Paraphrase: Express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, esp. to achieve greater clarity.
Thanks Mike. That expains it. You were not aware of the definition of paraphrase. Apology accepted.

Mike KirchubelOctober 28, 2011 - 9:28 am

If it really mattered, I would argue that your limited definition does not cover all the uses of the word. I am happy with moving on. I think my biggest mistake was not using Marci's LOL :).
"Paraphrasing Tips
A Bridgewater College Writing Center Handout
What Is a Paraphrase?
A paraphrase is a rewording of another writer's text, explanation, argument, or narrative. It is about the same length as the original, but is substantially different in wording and sentence structure.
Why Paraphrase?
If your purpose is one of the following, you may wish to paraphrase a portion of a text:
to make sure that you fully understand what the text says (for example, a poem or a Bible verse or a speech from a play by Shakespeare);
to discuss someone's argument or text directly;
to use as expert evidence for a point you are making in your own argumentative text;
to present an opposing point of view that you wish to refute.
How to Paraphrase a Text
Use alternative wording to the author's throughout your paraphrase.
If you use the author's words to name important ideas, enclose his or her phrases in quotation marks.
Present the ideas of the original using your own sentence structure as well as your own word choice. Following the author's sentence structure, even if you use alternative wording, is considered plagiarizing.
Cite your source, even if you do not use a direct quotation from the source.
When including a paraphrase in your text, introduce the topic in your own words, but make it clear that you are presenting someone else's ideas with wording like "H. H. Smith argues that . . ." or "According to medical researcher Donald Smith, . . ." or "Smith also claims that . . .". "

rlw895October 28, 2011 - 12:27 pm

ArtimusOctober 28, 2011 - 1:07 pm

Thanks Mike; that is all that I was asking. And I could understand your thought on my previous response regarding the Republican Bill and I guess I would have looked at that as a non rebuttal also knowing that is how you perceived it. And to be honest I missed the link to that documentary; I usually ignore them because they are often bias or someone like Fred who puts up some silly comical stuff with absolutely no connection to the subject.
And you are right I don’t think anybody likes to be called names; and I don’t think it was fair but it’s just that people want a fair discussion with fair proof and examples other then just self made claims. From my end; I really don’t mean to be so hard on you Mike but sometimes a little nudge gets the person to listen. And I do appreciate a sincere response which I will return in respect. Thanks Mike.

Mike KirchubelOctober 28, 2011 - 1:29 pm

I sincerely thank you (no LOL and no smiley faces.) I only wish people would do the google searches on their own. Provide us with information - for or against - a point. Just calling people names and putting LOL's on the blog does not move the conversation forward. Maybe it was good to have a little blow-out here and get rid of some ghosts in the machine.

Mike KirchubelOctober 27, 2011 - 11:43 pm

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 7:55 am

America reaps what it sows. Obama mania has degenerated to discontent and mass protests--all by his design. His opportunity is created by focusing blame on the GOP. He accomplishes this by any means possible: lies, bribes, and slander. His instrument of choice is executive fiat to work around what he thinks of as the confines of Congress and law. Obama is waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces of a country torn asunder so he can move in making more promises he will not keep, taking over more institutions, and exerting more power and authority in the name of THE PEOPLE.
Obama is the most dangerous threat to the United States and we have to beat this savage at his own game--or face the consequences of an unrecognizable future country.

Mike KirchubelOctober 28, 2011 - 8:13 am

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 8:22 am

Leave it to a lib to bring up race! LOL According to my Webster's dictionary, Mike, one of the meaning of "savage is "a fierce, brutal person." Obama savages this country, i.e. "attacks violently either physically or VERBALLY."

V MOctober 28, 2011 - 11:37 am

sav·age /ˈsævɪdʒ/ Show Spelled [sav-ij] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -aged, -ag·ing.adjective 1.fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts. 2.uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes. 3.enraged or furiously angry, as a person.
4.unpolished; rude: savage manners. 5.wild or rugged, as country or scenery: savage wilderness. 6.Archaic. uncultivated; growing wild. noun 7.an uncivilized human being.
8.a fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
9.a rude, boorish person.
10.a member of a preliterate society
These are the definitions that I found, so I would have to agree with Mike. That in the content of which you wrote, a person would belive that you meant maybe meaning 1, 2 or 7.

V MOctober 28, 2011 - 2:02 pm

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 6:50 pm

VM, I appreciate your view, but those who have been on the blog for a while know that I really like Herman Cain and am supporting him for prez. "Savages" was a pejorative for American Indians, another group that I would not disparage or compare to the Obama administration's incivility and lack of transparency.
Herman Cain is being demonized and ridiculed like the left did to Sarah Palin. One leftie implied that Cain couldn't even spell "Iraq" and worse things. No one on the right cries racist, because we're above that.
BTW, Obama's crony capitalism with Solyndra and his lobbyist pals should be the subject for a protest in Lafayette Park, across from the WH. He has gotten his hands on $5 million of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Doubt the dirty and daft occupiers around the country are aware of any of these facts (which everyone can look up on their own.)

ArtimusOctober 28, 2011 - 12:46 pm

You see that is what I am talking about? What other proof does anybody need where Mike out rightly accuses the Tea Party of being racist without any proof. That is exactly what I have been trying to point out as being unfair. SugarJar; this might be your way out, do you agree with Mike or not regarding his accusation against the Tea Party?

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 12:49 pm

rlw895October 31, 2011 - 7:03 am

There is a difference between calling the Tea Party racist or a racist organization, witch I don't think can be proven or is true, and saying there is substantial evidence of racism in the Tea Party and among its members, which is well documented. So both you and Mike are right. At what point a group's membership justifies calling the group racist is a matter of opinion where reasonable people may differ.

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 9:18 am

For the record, I don't think the Tea Party is racist - only some members. The Tea Party can't control who says what or what signs are brought to the gatherings - just like the OWS people cannot control or regulate everybody in their groups. I'm sure both groups have their share of fringe elements and the media, whose job it is to gather audience to make their advertising worth more, will pick those people to interview and photograph. It's just as misleading to say the OWS group is filty as it is to say the TP'ers are racist.

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 2:42 pm

V MOctober 28, 2011 - 4:46 pm

That is why when you used the word savage, it came across as being racist. For all too many years African Americans were considered uncivilized, untamed, boorish, barbarous, just like animals. Not that was your intent but it is how it could have been taken.

rlw895October 28, 2011 - 12:34 pm

Lot's of smoke, little illumination. It would be more interesting to discuss why we aren't Mexico, or why we won't become Mexico, which is where your column should have led. Maybe people don't care? Too bad.

Mike KirchubelOctober 28, 2011 - 12:39 pm

rlw895October 28, 2011 - 4:37 pm

Just because we've never been like Mexico doesn't mean we won't become like Mexico. If we care, we need to understand what has made us different and be on guard to protect the institutions and policies that have made us different. Just this week the government issued a report on income distribution, showing a 30-year trend that has doubled the percent of national income in the top 1%. That's making us more like Mexico. Unchecked, we will become Mexico.

tcc43October 28, 2011 - 6:12 pm

Will we still have to dial "1" for English, rlw? When we become Mexico, it will not be due to capitalism-- it is happening because our government has for years failed to protect and defend our borders (something even the communists do without fail), and because these people are outbreeding us by a mile (oh, and then there's that little 14th Amendment thing).

rlw895October 29, 2011 - 8:24 am

tcc43October 29, 2011 - 10:22 am

Didn't miss it--just failed to address it. I failed because the reality of my point frightens and angers me more than the remote possibility you might be correct about the US becoming a nation of "haves" vs "have-nots," a la Mexico today.

rlw895October 31, 2011 - 7:16 am

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 12:48 pm

The president of the United States and his chief of staff have both said publicly this week that they can't wait for Congress to work things out and they have to do what's necessary. I'd say that's a lot closer to Mexico than I'd like to be!

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 9:22 am

Obama is say what i said in the article last week: This is a do-nothing congress and the Republicans are dead-set on stopping any measure that will bring relief to America's unemployed until Obama is fired. They don't care about us 99%'ers on the bottom at all. They pander to their wealthy benefactors and that's all that matters.

ArtimusOctober 27, 2011 - 11:52 pm

MarciOctober 28, 2011 - 6:54 pm

Obama considers himself a cosmopolitan citizen of the world. He'd love a borderless country and one currency. Maybe he can run for king of world and leave governing to someone who really cares about this country. :)

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 9:25 am

tcc43October 31, 2011 - 9:48 am

Narrowing the focus to the United States, lets assume you are correct about the wealty ruling class (regardless of political dogma). As a future serf then, what type of rulers would I choose to be enslaved by? Would it be the "Soros/Progressive" rulers or the "Fat Cat/Wall-Streeters?") That is a no brainer. "Fat Cat/Wall-Streeters" want to control all the wealth, "Soros/Progressives" want to control all the wealth AND all the people. I would choose the former. Fortunately, I won't have to choose. But if I did...

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 11:09 am

Both sides are controlled by wealth. You DO realize that the communist takeover in Russia was financed by U.S. and British bankers - Don't you? They were able to prolong the Great War by another two years and they set up an antithesis to the West's thesis (capitalism) ensuring ongoing wars - and profits - well into the future.

MarciOctober 31, 2011 - 11:17 am

tcc43October 31, 2011 - 12:00 pm

I repeat: Ruled by Soros/Progressive vs ruled by wealthy bankers, etc. It is not all the same to me. If forced to choose, I would not throw in with the Progressive-One World Order crowd. The other side? My fellow Americans and I would take names and kick a$$ until things were right again for the vast majority of people.

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 12:15 pm

Maybe I wasn't clear enough - At the top, is wealth. all this left wing / right wing stuff is just to keep you from seeing the truth. You may get to fight for "what you believe" and that'll help thin the herd on both sides. In the end, the survivors will be ruled by the wealthy, not as we are now, by their managers, but openly. The wealthy will no longer have to worry about mass perceptions and "voting."

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 12:22 pm

Mr. PracticalOctober 31, 2011 - 12:25 pm

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 8:30 am

You missed the point, rlw: One of Obama's goals to fundamentally change America is to level the playing field. In his warped vision of Utopia, the 1%--of which he is a part--will always have the wealth. The only difference is that there will be NO middle class. We'll all be serfs (so to speak) like the Mexicans.

CD BrooksOctober 29, 2011 - 8:56 am

Marci, how can you say that? Your very own GOP will not do anything but make policy that aids the wealthy. I don't believe the rich should be penalized for just being rich, but they surely need to pay the proper taxes on their obscene profits. Maybe after that, we'd have a middle class and some lower class survivors. Your half of the country's government is the one burying us.

MarciOctober 29, 2011 - 9:06 am

I say it with conviction, CD. Your anti-GOP taunts are hollow. Both parties are remiss in not plugging up the tax loopholes for the wealthy. Say what you will--the triad of Obama and the House/Senate was in power for two years and spent us into unconquerable debt that is burying us. Obama is worse than old Nikita was on a good day.

rlw895October 31, 2011 - 7:40 am

Both parties are remiss but they are not equal. The Republicans have completely sold out. The Democrats have merely been ineffective in reversing the slide. I see no evidence supporting the idea that Obama is a Republican. LOL :-D :-D

MarciOctober 31, 2011 - 8:09 am

Here's a new 'Marcism' for rlw: The president who has made innumerable deals with sinking green energy companies will himself go down like like an anchor in 2012. Today's news lists another $45 million deal for a company that is now belly-up--and the bread crumbs lead to 1600 PA Ave.

MarciOctober 31, 2011 - 10:05 am

Where in the world did you ever hear "the idea that Obama is a Republican"? OMG, LOL Obama is the antithesis of small government. He couldn't wait to jam ObamaCare through so not only could he control the distribution of who gets what when (remember 'death panels'?), but he also had the IRS hire thousands knowing that finds would be accrued.

rlw895October 31, 2011 - 1:14 pm

Mr. P: I try not to use "I think" or "I believe" when it's pretty obvious I'm expressing an opinion, as here. That's not just me; some teacher I had drilled that into me once;-).
I've repeatedly written in these comments how I believe the Republicans have adopted a "prime directive" of enhancing and protecting the wealth of their benefactors. You see it time and again, most recently in their defense of the so-called Bush tax cuts. It's like everything else is on the table except that. That's why Republican wedge issues are only wedge issues.
I don't buy Mike's thesis that our presidents are all sell-outs. Certainly money plays way too big a role in American politics, and it can be corrupting, but it's that "false equivalent" thing again to state of imply there is no difference between the parties.
I believe (there, I said it) the Democrats, and perhaps some third parties, are the party of the middle class. Maybe it's by default, but that's the way it is. The Republicans no longer care about the middle class. So I think (there) Mike makes a good point in his column.
New column tomorrow; let's continue there! But I'll repeat my "prime directive" dissertation before I leave, if I saved a copy.

sinngrinOctober 29, 2011 - 11:40 pm

MarciOctober 31, 2011 - 10:16 am

Oh, really! Republicans pander to the rich? Obama used billions of our tax dollars to give to failing green energy companies for their support. Pelosi handed out ObamaCare waivers to her SF backer constituents like candy. Frank and Dodd engineered the subprime lending fiasco and didn't go away empty-handed.
Mike, when all is said and done, do you really consider yourself in the same so-called 99% category as the dem losers on food stamps for generations, or college kids clamoring for non-payment of their loans, or the scum who create tabloid trash about every viable GOP candidate? Maybe you do?!
Your party is the epitome of everything we do not accept as American ideals: handouts, bailouts, government takeovers, class warfare, race-baiting, and slander.

Republican Harry Price is in summation taking money from poorer Fairfield business districts to help his patrons in richer business districts with larger businesses.
Details at www.EconomicSegregations.Net
Harry has great points about his character. Yet, while people need not agree on all the details, the summation of the points shows Harry's employees (not Harry himself) make life hard for you unless you are Harry's patron in some form. Or so it appears.

MarciOctober 31, 2011 - 12:54 pm

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 1:26 pm

A brief excerpt from that nameless book:
"So, why would rich capitalists fund a communist revolution? “If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.” – Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 1976.
“Communism is not (and never was) a creation of the masses to overthrow the Banking establishment, but rather a creation of the Banking establishment to overthrow and enslave the people.” - Anthony J. Hilder. “Although Communism, like other ‘isms,’ had originated with Marx's association with the House of Rothschild, it enlisted the reverent support of John D. Rockefeller because he saw Communism for what it is, the ultimate monopoly, not only controlling the government, the monetary system and all property, but also a monopoly which, like the corporations it emulates, is self-perpetuating and eternal. It was the logical progression from his Standard Oil monopoly.” - Eustace Mullins, Murder by Injection, 1988. “Communism is simply state capitalism in which the state has absolute ownership of everything including all the efforts of the people.” – Marshal Tito, communist dictator of Yugoslavia – And he should know. Even when Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin revealed that most of the foreign aid was ending up: “straight back into the coffers of western banks in debt service.” The international bankers, it would seem, have always owned everybody."

Mike KirchubelOctober 31, 2011 - 1:33 pm

MarciOctober 31, 2011 - 1:41 pm

rlw895October 31, 2011 - 1:33 pm

So, Mr. P: Here's what I wrote a couple months ago:
"Let’s say you’re really wealthy and want more. A good American value (and clearly a characteristic much respected, even worshipped among some here). Let’s say also you care more about that than any other issue. But let’s also say you live in America, and you have to contend with our form of democracy. What do you do?
"You use you wealth. You get one party to make your interests its “prime directive” by funding campaigns and think tanks. You buy or fund media outlets to make sure your politicians and think tank output get more than fair airing. This way, and by buying the best marketing talent you can get, you convince people that making the rich richer is good for everyone.
"Then you demonize the opposition using lies and distortions. You seek out every “wedge” issue you can to peel votes away. Guns, gays, and abortion are good ones. You don’t really care about any of the wedge issues of course; they are not your prime directive. You’ll take any side the opposition, on principle, can’t take. You keep wedge issues that are useful in gaining votes spinning, and you abandon those that are not.
"You’ll dress all of this up in patriotism: Good for America, part of what the Constitution requires. That’s nonsense of course, but say it often enough and loudly enough and you will, if you’re successful, drown out other voices.
"You’ll also drown out the fact that your wealth, and that of you like-minded friends, is accumulating to unprecedented levels in America, while the middle class stagnates. You demand and get a regressive tax system to keep it that way while fighting government expenditures that help anyone but your class. You are, in fact, more loyal to you class than your country.
"The party that supports all this has 'sold out.'"
To this, you replied (so you don't have to again):
"You’re underestimating the American voter. BTW… Democrats use lies and distortion as frequently as Republicans. It’s the nature of the political beast.
Again, on this issue, it’s time to agree to disagree."
So there you have it. I say you use false equivalence, but you don't see it that way. The reality I observe, and have observed for many years now, completely supports my view. You see a different reality. So be it. But I do want to point out that I wrote this before the "Occupy" movement got going and before the most recent report on the concentration of income. None of the data are new. What's new is the response. It's evolving. I don't know where it leads, but I'm glad people are talking about it now.
Will be become like Mexico? I don't know. We have such a different history and culture. But it's worth thinking about, and I don't think the Republicans care if their prime directive leads us there. Maybe we will get around to discussing what the "Occupy" demands should be. I wrote about that too, if you recall.

rlw895October 31, 2011 - 1:55 pm

It's not an open-ended question. It's yes or no. (Or "I don't know.") There will be an answer, whether we like it or not.
All I'm saying is it's worth thinking about. But we're all busy; some--most--chose not to do that.

Mr. PracticalOctober 31, 2011 - 2:03 pm

If the question is, "will we become like Mexico?" I don't know in what way you mean since I haven't followed that part of the thread. If it's tied to the whole "prime directive" conspiracy theory then I would say no, because I don't buy that theory.

MarciOctober 31, 2011 - 2:17 pm

Mr. P., it isn't a conspiracy theory if you look at what is happening to the border states. As Buchanan points out in "Suicide of a Superpower," The percentage of Hispanics will exceed whites, blacks, and others in the coming decades. The welfare state will grow to accommodate poorly educated people. English won't be the national language.

Mr. PracticalOctober 31, 2011 - 2:34 pm

rlw895November 01, 2011 - 10:18 pm

Mr. P: Calling it a conspiracy is too much. I don’t do that. The only premise you have to accept is that some—enough—people (not all) who have amassed a large amount of wealth put preserving and enhancing that wealth above anything else, and are therefore willing to spend to that end. That’s not so hard a premise to buy.
It probably isn’t even top-down. Many people, in exchange for money or position, will serve the wealthy by proposing ways to accomplish the “prime directive.” That’s probably closer to what’s going on, not a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
So while planning and conspiracy may occur to some degree, they are not necessary to my thesis. The motivation natural, which is why we need government to counter it. That’s also why government animus, cultivated by the right, serves the prime directive.
It’s interesting to note that John Locke was a “prime directive” kind of guy. His triad of rights was “life, liberty, and property.” The Founders, thankfully, changed that to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and a new nation was born with an important tweak to its Lockean philosophical underpinnings.

Mike KirchubelNovember 01, 2011 - 10:45 pm

I agree with rlw. It doesn't take very many wealthy people who want to have even greater wealth to manipulate (purchase) enough politicians to make their dreams come true. The term, "Vast" Conspiracy applies only to the amount of money, not the number of people.

Mr. PracticalNovember 02, 2011 - 6:21 am

rlw895November 03, 2011 - 11:32 am

The Founders had an aversion to political parties too. That lasted about as long as Washington was president. Reality took over before the denial ended. This idea looks more like an alternative election rather than a nomination process. Who would run in such a contest? Would the major contenders be barred? Sort of reminds me of the California recall--how we got Arnold.
Here's a link for you, though I'm not sure you can access it unless you are a subscriber:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/02/DDFQ1LOIU2.DTL